Powerful Men, Beautiful Women, and Sex

[swansont]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

I think it's a question of how you can actually make a difference. If you imagine you can somehow change human nature, or behaviour, it needs more than slogans and campaigns. We've got all that already. If I had teenage daughters, the only thing that I could do to actually make them safer, is to make them risk aware.  I know full well that there will ALWAYS be some predatory men out there, no matter how much society castigates them.

How does making the women risk-aware change the human nature/behavior of the men? Would you teach your teenage sons about consent?

 

 

[dimreepr]

How do we make our daughters risk aware? No showing your legs or cleavage? No eye contact, don't be sexy or flirty? If you think that then go to Saudi Arabia and take advantage of their laws, and force your women to be risk aware.

The western world fought hard, and continues to fight, for its freedom, is that just for men? 

There is no MO for rapists, they take advantage of situations and those situations have nothing to do with apparel and everything to do with seclusion; we can advise our daughters to avoid being alone with strange men but it's not their fault if they fancy him and want to be alone with him, but he turns out to be an arsehole with his brains in his dick and goes deaf with a hardon, its ALLWAYS his fault.

[zapatos]

8 hours ago, iNow said:

Nobody here, myself included, said you couldn’t discuss risk minimization.

You have discouraged or tried to redirect the conversation away from risk mitigation suggesting it was not appropriate.

Quote

Now, would you like to answer the actual question I posed? Do you feel this will all go away if women simply do a better job of avoiding dark allies and miniskirts? I don’t think that’s either a viable solution nor a fair representation of your position, but what is then?

Sorry, I don't remember seeing that question before.

I am confident this will not all go away if women simply do a better job of avoiding dark allies and miniskirts.

My position is that we should discuss all aspects of this issue and the circumstances surrounding it with the goal of reducing the problem.

6 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

There will still be just as many bad people if all the women dress like nuns or dress like whores.

 

Yes, I know there will be just as many bad people.

Quote

All your approach does is choose a different victim, and it's naive to think otherwise

So you want me to tell my daughter to throw caution to the wind and take one for the team? You can treat your kids like cannon fodder; I choose another approach.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

I have yet to see the "risky behavior" scenario established as the rule rather than the exception when it comes to sexual assault, especially in light of the recent news stories which have prompted the discussion.

 

And I doubt you ever will.

Quote

Until you establish the predominance of "risky behavior" as something that should be considered risk (short skirts is risk?), and a causal factor (rather than excuse) in these cases, it is a non-sequitur.
 

Ask your wife, or any woman, if she is more likely to be harassed in a mini-skirt and with cleavage or in sweats. Or if drunk college men are more likely to harass than sober college men. Or if she is more likely to receive unwanted stares going bra less. The fact that you don't seem to know these things makes me feel you are out of touch.

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

There is no evidence that she received any meaningful or effective training.

Ah, EFFECTIVE training. Of course. I thought it was that she had to be acting in an official capacity for her to have "been trained", but now I see that you have not been trained if it was not EFFECTIVE. Like I wasn't actually trained in CPR because when I used it the guy died.

Thanks for clearing that up John. You are a fountain of information.

44 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

... we can advise our daughters to avoid being alone with strange men but it's not their fault if they fancy him and want to be alone with him, but he turns out to be an arsehole with his brains in his dick and goes deaf with a hardon, its ALLWAYS his fault.

Yes, I think that's been pretty well established by now.

[swansont]

25 minutes ago, zapatos said:

 Ask your wife, or any woman, if she is more likely to be harassed in a mini-skirt and with cleavage or in sweats. Or if drunk college men are more likely to harass than sober college men. Or if she is more likely to receive unwanted stares going bra less. The fact that you don't seem to know these things makes me feel you are out of touch.

You're missing the point that I and others have been trying to make. 

How do we change this behavior? Is it by telling women that they can't or shouldn't do certain things? How is that going to change anything? Or is it maybe by changing how men conduct themselves?

 

[zapatos]

13 minutes ago, swansont said:

You're missing the point that I and others have been trying to make. 

How do we change this behavior? Is it by telling women that they can't or shouldn't do certain things? How is that going to change anything? Or is it maybe by changing how men conduct themselves?

 

Actually my point so far has been that most people did NOT ask the questions you just asked, but were instead reluctant to discuss it as we were perceived as simply making excuses, living in the dark ages, blaming the victim, wasting everyone's time, etc.

I believe that the goal is to reduce the overall problem, and that can be better achieved not by just going after the perpetrator, but by considering the problem from the perspective of the victim. Reduce the likelihood of an incident occurring, and develop and implement effective strategies to minimize the impact when they do occur.

Many people, young ones in particular, and not educated on how to deal with these complex situations that lead to assault. Look at the the US women's gymnastics team for example. A doctor molested dozens of young women, who by their own admission did not understand or know how to respond to the situation. Educating young people like this who are removed from the protection of their parents to recognize and avoid situations where that can occur is likely to have a positive impact.

A more complex situation is the mixed signals sent out by some celebrities. Telling women to not allow themselves to be treated like sex objects, might be followed the next day by going out in public without underwear and flashing your hoohah. How do men react to that? How do young women react to that? Is that unknowingly putting young ladies at risk who might be tempted to do the same?

It's just a thought, but I think we can come up with dozens of examples like this where a little risk mitigation can go a long way.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Ask your wife, or any woman, if she is more likely to be harassed in a mini-skirt and with cleavage or in sweats. Or if drunk college men are more likely to harass than sober college men. Or if she is more likely to receive unwanted stares going bra less. The fact that you don't seem to know these things makes me feel you are out of touch.

This is where the "risk minimisation" argument falls down. This can't be compared with forgetting to lock your door and then getting robbed. Or walking into a particular bar and shouting abuse (or whatever the other examples were). 

Unlike these cases, which are examples of foolish or provocative behaviour, you are saying that women should not be themselves, they should not dress as they wish.

Apart from the fact that there is no correlation between women's behaviour and/or dress and them being assaulted - there was a very powerful art installation a while ago called something like "what I was wearing"; a collection clothes that women were wearing when assaulted or raped. There were a few skimpy dresses and skirts but they were mainly ordinary working clothes, sweat pants, jeans, baggy jumpers, etc. The idea that women can reduce their risk in this way is as foolish as the idea that they should.

It is like going back a few years and saying that "coloured folk" should just keep quiet and not complain, not look people in the eye, not speak out or go to certain laces in case they get beaten up or arrested for being black.

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Unlike these cases, which are examples of foolish or provocative behaviour, you are saying that women should not be themselves, they should not dress as they wish.

No, I am not.

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Educating young people like this who are removed from the protection of their parents to recognize and avoid situations where that can occur is likely to have a positive impact.

But they should not have to avoid the situation. You gave the example of the team doctor molesting them. How should they avoid that? Leave the team? Take a friend when they visit the doctor?

So it is not so much about educating them as putting an effective mechanism for them to make a complaint (I am absolutely sure they don't need to be told that they should do that). If the only person you could complain to is the abuser ...) And then making sure that when they do complain they get listened to (no more of that "don't rock the boat", "he is our best [whatever]", "think of the problems it will cause for the organisation" stuff)

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

No, I am not.

Then it is very unclear what you are saying. 

[StringJunky]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

Apart from the fact that there is no correlation between women's behaviour and/or dress and them being assaulted...

So, that woman walking through the pop festival topless and getting groped bore no correlation?

[Phi for All]

29 minutes ago, swansont said:

Or is it maybe by changing how men conduct themselves?

If we can agree that practicing reasonable situational awareness is required moving forward, and that considering assault on women to be a bad thing is also a "given", then how else are we going to change the prejudiced approach to investigations and other injustices, other than trying to change how men conduct themselves? I, for one, am not content to assume we can't do better in this regard. This is how a society gets better, by refusing to ignore problems any longer.

I also don't feel anyone is trying to shut down discussion of any particular area. Isn't part of debate trying to show the folks you're talking to a different POV, expose them to sides they maybe hadn't taken into consideration? In this case, I feel we have laws that should protect women, but they aren't fairly enforced because, in large part, of this knee-jerk assumption that the woman did something stupid. 

 

[zapatos]

19 minutes ago, Strange said:

But they should not have to avoid the situation.

Agreed. It is ridiculous that a doctor you go to for help might molest you.

Unfortunately, the world is a dangerous place full of assholes. Let's not let our daughters get molested because ideally we would like her to be safe all the time and therefore don't take simple precautions.

Quote

You gave the example of the team doctor molesting them. How should they avoid that? Leave the team? Take a friend when they visit the doctor?

Great questions! Glad you are joining in the discussion!

Quote

So it is not so much about educating them as putting an effective mechanism for them to make a complaint (I am absolutely sure they don't need to be told that they should do that). If the only person you could complain to is the abuser ...) And then making sure that when they do complain they get listened to (no more of that "don't rock the boat", "he is our best [whatever]", "think of the problems it will cause for the organisation" stuff)

Excellent idea!

Quote

(I am absolutely sure they don't need to be told that they should do that)

Unfortunately I don't share your confidence. These women for the most part did not complain, and neither did many of the women now speaking out in the #MeToo movement.

19 minutes ago, Strange said:

Then it is very unclear what you are saying. 

All people who are exposed to risk should be aware of that risk and consider what if any risk mitigation is appropriate for them in their particular circumstances.

Mitigating risk can be done not only by trying to remove the risk (the assholes) but also by avoiding the risk and responding to risk effectively.

Edited January 8, 2018 by zapatos

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Unfortunately, the world is a dangerous place full of assholes. Let's not let our daughters get molested because ideally we would like her to be safe all the time and therefore don't take simple precautions.

1

I note you didn't properly address my post, is freedom for men only? What precautions can one's daughter take if she wants to be alone with the man she imagines to be her suitor? As you've suggested, it's nuanced, so what are "simple precautions"?

[Strange]

16 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

So, that woman walking through the pop festival topless and getting groped bore no correlation?

You can't draw a correlation from a single data point.

[dimreepr]

18 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

So, that woman walking through the pop festival topless and getting groped bore no correlation?

If you walked through a pop festival, stark bollock naked would you expect to be groped?

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I note you didn't properly address my post,

Sorry...

Quote

is freedom for men only?

I hope not. Certainly not from my perspective.

Quote

What precautions can one's daughter take if she wants to be alone with the man she imagines to be her suitor? As you've suggested, it's nuanced, so what are "simple precautions"?

I certainly don't pretend to have all the answers so I don't know how well this works, but I've heard of women who make sure to tell friends of their plans, send their friends pics of the guys license plate, do Google searches, meet the guy instead of having him pick you up, meet with friends, etc., and then letting the man know that others know who they are with. While it certainly won't eliminate risk, it may make the man think twice about his actions, or to give him opportunity prior to the woman getting to know him better.

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If you walked through a pop festival, stark bollock naked would you expect to be groped?

You should expect that it is more likely than if you were fully clothed.

[Strange]

17 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Great questions! Glad you are joining in the discussion!

You have no answers, though. Other than "the women should avoid the situation"

18 minutes ago, zapatos said:

These women for the most part did not complain, and neither did many of the women now speaking out in the #MeToo movement.

Have you really no idea why? Do you really think they need to be told that being assaulted is a bad thing and they shouldn't put up with it?

Many were too afraid to complain. Because they knew of the negative consequences it would have for them (and probably not the perpetrator). Even if there is someone other than the abuser to complain to, that person (probably male, because in a position of authority) will probably say, "leave it with me; I'll talk to him" ... "Hey Dave, Sue said that you ..." That's really not going to help anyone.

Many did (try to) complain and were told to keep quiet or were just ignored.

22 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Mitigating risk can be done not only by trying to remove the risk (the assholes) but also by avoiding the risk and responding to risk effectively.

You seemed to be saying that design "sexily" was a risk factor and that women should avoid doing that. When I said that was unreasonable you said that isn't what you meant.

It really isn't clear how women should avoid the risk when the largest risk factor is just being female in a male dominated environment (which is most workplaces). Many women already do have to do things like not getting into a lift when certain men are present, arranging their lunch schedules so they are not left alone in the office, not going for a drink with colleagues after work. And, occasionally, leaving the workplace completely. These are all totally unreasonable things that they should not be expected to do.

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

You should expect that it is more likely than if you were fully clothed.

As the odds are pretty close to zero if you are male, making it more likely means it still won't happen.

If you are female it is almost a certainty however you are dressed.

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I certainly don't pretend to have all the answers so I don't know how well this works, but I've heard of women who make sure to tell friends of their plans, send their friends pics of the guys license plate, do Google searches, meet the guy instead of having him pick you up, meet with friends, etc., and then letting the man know that others know who they are with. While it certainly won't eliminate risk, it may make the man think twice about his actions, or to give him opportunity prior to the woman getting to know him better.

 

I doubt anyone here thinks they have the answer and your suggestions are reasonable, but we all make mistakes...

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

So you want me to tell my daughter to throw caution to the wind and take one for the team? You can treat your kids like cannon fodder; I choose another approach.

It's  a very human response; "let some other parent suffer the tragedy of  their daughter getting attacked instead of me".

Does it make the world a better place?

The point is that, when everybody's daughter goes out dressed like a nun or whatever, there will be just as many attacks and the dicks responsible will still pretend that it's the victim's fault because you told them it was OK for them to do that.

Similarly, if all the women go out stark naked then there will be pretty much the same number of attacks- the dicks responsible will make their choice of victim on some other basis and, by extension, you will say they were right to do so.

 

The problem here is not women's clothes. The problem is that there is a set of men who feel that they are "entitled" to get their leg over without regard for anyone else's feelings about it. By saying "they were wearing a short skirt" you are validating that entitlement. You are perpetuating thee myth that "they deserved it" or even "they were asking for it" -which is exactly the sort of thing those inadequate blokes say.

You talk of risk management. What you are doing is risk transfer. You propose to move the risk from your daughter to some other poor soul's daughter.

That's not really solving the problem.

[zapatos]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

You have no answers, though. Other than "the women should avoid the situation"

Sorry I'm not the man you thought I was. I didn't realize the onus was on me to have the answers and to have presented them by this stage of the discussion.

Quote

Have you really no idea why? Do you really think they need to be told that being assaulted is a bad thing and they shouldn't put up with it?

Yes, I have an idea why. In the case of the young gymnasts it was in part because they did not have the maturity to distinguish between assault and what the person in authority told them was standard "treatment" that was in their best interest. At least that's what they said.

Quote

It really isn't clear how women should avoid the risk when the largest risk factor is just being female in a male dominated environment (which is most workplaces). Many women already do have to do things like not getting into a lift when certain men are present, arranging their lunch schedules so they are not left alone in the office, not going for a drink with colleagues after work. And, occasionally, leaving the workplace completely. These are all totally unreasonable things that they should not be expected to do.

I agree. It is a difficult situation for women.

Quote

If you are female it is almost a certainty however you are dressed.

If that were true, then nearly every woman at the festival would have been assaulted. You might want to rethink that assertion.

[dimreepr]

21 minutes ago, zapatos said:

You should expect that it is more likely than if you were fully clothed.

 

Not if you saw me. 

[swansont]

45 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Actually my point so far has been that most people did NOT ask the questions you just asked, but were instead reluctant to discuss it as we were perceived as simply making excuses, living in the dark ages, blaming the victim, wasting everyone's time, etc.

I think part of the problem is that the "risk" point was raised after the point about changing mens' behavior was raised (which was back on page 1). In that context, it looks like an attempt at shifting the discussion.

 

45 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I believe that the goal is to reduce the overall problem, and that can be better achieved not by just going after the perpetrator, but by considering the problem from the perspective of the victim. Reduce the likelihood of an incident occurring, and develop and implement effective strategies to minimize the impact when they do occur.

Women have been told to minimize risk for generations.

45 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Many people, young ones in particular, and not educated on how to deal with these complex situations that lead to assault. Look at the the US women's gymnastics team for example. A doctor molested dozens of young women, who by their own admission did not understand or know how to respond to the situation. Educating young people like this who are removed from the protection of their parents to recognize and avoid situations where that can occur is likely to have a positive impact.

More than 100. They were told that the doctor was a professional and that they were imagining things (gaslighting is not a new development in this arena); that it was legitimate treatment. And the doctor was first reported in 1997. People (both U Mich and USA gymnastics) covered for the him. This was not because people did not know how to respond. 

http://www.businessinsider.com/larry-nassar-pleaded-guilty-on-7-counts-of-sexual-assault-ug-gymnastics-michigan-2017-12

 

[zapatos]

5 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

The point is that, when everybody's daughter goes out dressed like a nun or whatever, there will be just as many attacks and the dicks responsible will still pretend that it's the victim's fault because you told them it was OK for them to do that.

Similarly, if all the women go out stark naked then there will be pretty much the same number of attacks- the dicks responsible will make their choice of victim on some other basis and, by extension, you will say they were right to do so.

The problem here is not women's clothes. The problem is that there is a set of men who feel that they are "entitled" to get their leg over without regard for anyone else's feelings about it. By saying "they were wearing a short skirt" you are validating that entitlement. You are perpetuating thee myth that "they deserved it" or even "they were asking for it" -which is exactly the sort of thing those inadequate blokes say.

By failing to read what I've written or engage in honest dialogue you are wasting my time.

[swansont]

48 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

So, that woman walking through the pop festival topless and getting groped bore no correlation?

Do you know how many women got groped at the festival? 

[StringJunky]

40 minutes ago, Strange said:

You can't draw a correlation from a single data point.

I give up. We are in the Newtonian world now where commonsense exists. I can't be doing with mental gymnastics like this.

[Phi for All]

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

By failing to read what I've written or engage in honest dialogue you are wasting my time.

Overfocusing on the victim's behavior helps the perpetrators of sexual assault, as I'm sure you'll agree. And it seems like that's exactly what you're doing, overfocusing, bringing it up whenever it's suggested that men should instead be the focus. Is it that far out of bounds to suggest your approach lends a tacit support to the men involved?

You think it's a dishonest approach, and I don't understand why. Please help.